Dreams Born and Shattered 391Th e Debate over Sanctions and Coercion
In the international-law realm, liberalism was the principal victim of the
events of the 1930s, since it was the school of thought in which collective
security played the most central role. It was also the school of thought that
was most strongly committed to minority protection. Th roughout the
League’s existence, there had been principled opposition to collective secu-
rity ideas. But in the febrile atmosphere of the 1930s, it moved into an at-
tack mode.
An early assailant, interestingly, was John Bassett Moore. Aft er stepping
down from the World Court bench in 1928, he took on the role of a contro-
versialist and public polemicist. In “An Appeal to Reason” in the journal
Foreign Aff airs in 1933, he launched a frontal assault on the very conception
of collective security. He decried what he called the “new psychology”
behind it, contemptuously asserting that the idea had “no visible moorings
on earth or in the sky.” He insisted that the notion was based on “a funda-
mental misconception of the nature and function of all law, whether na-
tional or international.” He voiced contempt for “shallow dupes” who urge
states to “blindly don an imported livery of ‘world ser vice,’ to be paid for on
demand, in unestimated installments of blood and trea sure.”
Moore was joined in this campaign by a former student, Edwin M. Bor-
chard, a professor at Yale Law School. He echoed Moore in denouncing
the very idea of collective security as “doctrinaire... po liti cal theol-
ogy.” It was far better, he insisted, to rely on traditional international
law, which was “founded on practical experience of human aff airs.” He
condemned collective security policy as being “promotive of confl ict,” and
asserted that “[t]he very notion of coercion... destroys that trust and con-
fi dence and willingness to co- operate” that are essential for stable interna-
tional life. Th e more eff ective tool for keeping international peace, he
insisted, is traditional neutrality— keeping as many states as possible out
of war whenever a confl ict erupts. Collective security entailed precisely
the opposite strategy— drawing as many states as possible into any and
every confl ict— which Borchard asserted was fundamentally wrong-
headed. He favorably contrasted the law of neutrality, built on “the solid
foundations of the past,” with the law enforcement and policing approach
of collective security.